Obviously when something big needs to be funded or researched our govt will always be a main player. Thats not the question. The question in whether or not solar energy is a smart technology for our govt to be betting on so heavily. The folly to cool the earth could cost us big time. Bioengineering to cool the earth. Co2 reduction will never make it happen unless you are planning some sort of population control. Solar is a loser.

Once again. Oil/Coal is a finite resource. It's not all about GCC. We've been over this in this very thread.

Once again. Oil/Coal is a finite resource. It's not all about GCC. We've been over this in this very thread.

Thats not the point. Still you act like solar will be the replacement when that is no forgone conclusion. The power plants take up too much land and don't work at night. Go ahead and live the Obama fantasy that we can afford to use solar to power the country. We have enough coal and natural gas for a century, we should use it. The money we save keep looking for real alternatives that work. Not some all in on solar when it doesn't work.

The only real solution to the worlds enegry problem is nuclear fusion. Using seawater as the fule source with very little radioactive waste. Believe it or not these reactors are within the reach of our science. It will be the next huge step for mankind, not a feaking solar panel on your roof. One day solar panels will be laughed at as a joke of the global warming craze.

No, but the Chinese are currently kicking our ass in a lot of ways, aided in large part by our own short sightedness.

They are working together through force (just like the Soviets), and we have lost our ability to work together through mutual interest. The cold war was won not with bombs, but because we worked together as a nation to out compete that communist regime. We beat the Soviets economically and technologically. This time around, the communists have learned and are trying to flip the table on us, and they are winning because all we're interested in doing in building more irrelevant weapons and squabbling like schoolchildren over the letter in parentheses behind the president's name when he shows up on TV.

Quote:

and charging them a licensing fee for something a school developed seems a reasonable thing to do..
how you getting taxpayers charged twice is probably another liberal twist of words..

Paying for the R&D with tax money given to the university + making people pay for the results of the R&D = being asked to pay twice. Pretty simple.

No, but the Chinese are currently kicking our ass in a lot of ways, aided in large part by our own short sightedness.

They are working together through force (just like the Soviets), and we have lost our ability to work together through mutual interest. The cold war was won not with bombs, but because we worked together as a nation to out compete that communist regime. We beat the Soviets economically and technologically. This time around, the communists have learned and are trying to flip the table on us, and they are winning because all we're interested in doing in building more irrelevant weapons and squabbling like schoolchildren over the letter in parentheses behind the president's name when he shows up on TV.

Paying for the R&D with tax money given to the university + making people pay for the results of the R&D = being asked to pay twice. Pretty simple.

"Catching up" is a little different than "kicking our asses"

If any single State of These United States had a median household income around $10,000, you'd call it criminal. But in China you act like it's some sort of inspirational miracle.

I'll never understand the left's fascination with command and control economies. They don't work. China's growing, yes. But every industrializing country went through that phase. Yet I doubt you want this country to go through a second industrial revolution. The excesses of that era helped bring about the backlash in the progressive movement.

And we beat the Soviets because centrally planned economies don't work. The Soviets couldn't manage an economy on a world-class scale. And for the most part, our government won because it didn't have to.

Thats not the point. Still you act like solar will be the replacement when that is no forgone conclusion. The power plants take up too much land and don't work at night. Go ahead and live the Obama fantasy that we can afford to use solar to power the country. We have enough coal and natural gas for a century, we should use it. The money we save keep looking for real alternatives that work. Not some all in on solar when it doesn't work.

Why are you so fixated on Solar? Where have I said solar is definitely the answer? It's one idea that has *huge* potential if we can overcome the efficiency and cost problems (which we have been making steady progress on) and solve the storage problem.

Quote:

The only real solution to the worlds enegry problem is nuclear fusion. Using seawater as the fule source with very little radioactive waste. Believe it or not these reactors are within the reach of our science. It will be the next huge step for mankind, not a feaking solar panel on your roof. One day solar panels will be laughed at as a joke of the global warming craze.

Guess what you'll need if you want to use centralized fusion (something I also think is the most likely next step for large scale industrial power generation) when the oil runs out. You'll still need energy storage -- aka batteries. Energy storage is a major problem in the future -- one we don't face today because we use energy (ironically, solar energy) in a previously stored form (chemical).

Most likely the "battery" that we will use in the future will be hydrogen produced with nuclear power. Of course, hydrogen has its own huge set of logistical problems that will be a challenge.

Of course, all the tech necessary for these and all the other options are still in their infancy, and we don't know yet which one (or which combination) will work the best, which is why we need to continue doing research and development!

If any single State of These United States had a median household income around $10,000, you'd call it criminal. But in China you act like it's some sort of inspirational miracle.

Where did I say or even imply that?

Quote:

I'll never understand the left's fascination with command and control economies. They don't work. China's growing, yes. But every industrializing country went through that phase. Yet I doubt you want this country to go through a second industrial revolution. The excesses of that era helped bring about the backlash in the progressive movement.

And we beat the Soviets because centrally planned economies don't work. The Soviets couldn't manage an economy on a world-class scale. And for the most part, our government won because it didn't have to.

I never said I wanted or was fascinated with a command and control economy (in fact, I was very careful to not imply any such thing). Jesus ****ing Christ you wingnuts have zero reading comprehension.

Well when you say stuff like They're turning the tables on us and trying to beat us like we beat the Soviets and they're "winning" there's a whole lot of gaps one needs to fill in to get there.

A lot of the China paranoia today is ridiculously unfounded. Like back in the 80s when everyone thought Japan was going to rule the world.

I agree there is paranoia, but not about what China is doing economically. They don't have an interest in physical conflict with us. When I say they are trying to turn the tables on us, I mean they are trying to beat us not with force but with economic warfare.

They are currently "winning" because not because they are ahead of us, but because they have their eyes on the long game and we're stuck in the past. They're investing in themselves and their future whereas we are sending money to them for cheap trinkets (to the tune of $300bn a year in trade deficit) and throwing money away on weapons that will most likely never see the battlefield they are intended for, because that battlefield no longer exists (not just my opinion, see the comments from Powell et al earlier in the thread).

Without serious reforms, they will eventually tumble due to the communistic core of their economy, but that doesn't mean they won't take us down with them.

I agree there is paranoia, but not about what China is doing economically. They don't have an interest in physical conflict with us. When I say they are trying to turn the tables on us, I mean they are trying to beat us not with force but with economic warfare.

They are currently "winning" because not because they are ahead of us, but because they have their eyes on the long game and we're stuck in the past. They're investing in themselves and their future whereas we are sending money to them for cheap trinkets (to the tune of $300bn a year in trade deficit) and throwing money away on weapons that will most likely never see the battlefield they are intended for, because that battlefield no longer exists (not just my opinion, see the comments from Powell et al earlier in the thread).

Without serious reforms, they will eventually tumble due to the communistic core of their economy, but that doesn't mean they won't take us down with them.

They're industrializing. That's pretty much the long and short of it. It looks impressive when it's a nation of a billion people. and they're going to be an economic superpower, cumulatively, for sure. But until they see the light and grant their people greater freedom and let markets dictate economic decisions, they're no real threat in any sense, other than militarily.

Yes, their production capacity is impressive. But when American retailers are making more money off of Chinese production than the Chinese producers are, what you really have is almost a form of economic imperialism.

I will agree though that free trade with China is probably a bad deal. We should offer free trade agreements to every free and democratic nation without condition. Then put up trade tariffs on everyone else. We should force ourselves to be competitive with those who play by the same rules. But with nations that maintain essentially forced labor, we should do what we can to even the playing field. Unfortunately it might be too little too late on that front.

America should be working to tear down tarrffs not make more of them. Sure they are needed sometimes but using them too much is a bad idea. For instance Obama trying to save solar with tarriffs to protect all his bad investments, when we could be getting the panels for next to nothing from China, installing them on our homes, and actually getting something out of it.

Why are you so fixated on Solar? Where have I said solar is definitely the answer? It's one idea that has *huge* potential if we can overcome the efficiency and cost problems (which we have been making steady progress on) and solve the storage problem.

Guess what you'll need if you want to use centralized fusion (something I also think is the most likely next step for large scale industrial power generation) when the oil runs out. You'll still need energy storage -- aka batteries. Energy storage is a major problem in the future -- one we don't face today because we use energy (ironically, solar energy) in a previously stored form (chemical).

Most likely the "battery" that we will use in the future will be hydrogen produced with nuclear power. Of course, hydrogen has its own huge set of logistical problems that will be a challenge.

Of course, all the tech necessary for these and all the other options are still in their infancy, and we don't know yet which one (or which combination) will work the best, which is why we need to continue doing research and development!

Funny you asking why we are fixated on solar in this thread, or why I am whatever! Hey dumb**** look at the thread title, it's about wasting money on solar.

America should be working to tear down tarrffs not make more of them. Sure they are needed sometimes but using them too much is a bad idea. For instance Obama trying to save solar with tarriffs to protect all his bad investments, when we could be getting the panels for next to nothing from China, installing them on our homes, and actually getting something out of it.

An amazing concept. Write the bad investments off and move on. Wow was that not one of his campaign slogans. Move on.

In a semi related comment. I was driving down on I10 highway a few months ago saw those big wind mills coming at me in a series of six trucks.

One truck each with one vane on it, an extended flat bed with about 50 feet added to the middle of it. tow trucks hauling the base and towers same size truck and one hauling the generator actually the smallest part on a normal flat bed.

Thought great another wind mill going up nearby.

Got off I10 and went south a few miles and saw yet another convoy coming out of MEXICO with all the same units. Involved.

About an hour later was retracing my steps following them this time and saw yet another one this time the support blocks all of the stuff was lashed down to had hecho in Mexico on them.

And the truck had Mexican plates on them.

So even these Green units are not made in the USA and they still are not profitable.

We should be using our coal and natural gas while pouring the r&d money into nuclear fusion reactors. We get those babies online and look out it could fuel another era of huge advancement. Solar? sorry but not so much. Anyone who thinks solar is ever going to change the world is kidding themselves. They have poured a ton into it last 10 yrs and basically they aren't signifcantly more effecient yet. If you want the govt to fund something make it something big, that can really change our bottom line.

We should be using our coal and natural gas while pouring the r&d money into nuclear fusion reactors. We get those babies online and look out it could fuel another era of huge advancement. Solar? sorry but not so much. Anyone who thinks solar is ever going to change the world is kidding themselves. They have poured a ton into it last 10 yrs and basically they aren't signifcantly more effecient yet. If you want the govt to fund something make it something big, that can really change our bottom line.

Wow, just repeating yourself endlessly does not an argument make. That you completely blew off my previous reply to this malarkey is pretty telling.

Of course, no matter what we use to replace dino power (fusion, solar, wind, hydro, whatever), we'll still need a way to STORE that power in order to use it in mobile applications (e.g. cars), which is why we need better batteries! Dino power comes pre-stored in a readily usable form. Nuclear binding energy does not.

btw: You're full of sh*t, as usual. Average commercial solar cell (both major kinds) efficiency has nearly doubled in the last 10 years. If that's not 'significant' what is? It still lags significantly from what we have achieved in the lab, which is why we should keep working on ways to improve what we are currently doing. In the same time, the price has been reduced to a fraction of the cost 10 years ago.

I love that you're such a p***Y that 10 years of work on something and you want to tuck tail and run. Like I said before, if the likes of you were running things we'd still be in the stone age.

America should be working to tear down tarrffs not make more of them. Sure they are needed sometimes but using them too much is a bad idea. For instance Obama trying to save solar with tarriffs to protect all his bad investments, when we could be getting the panels for next to nothing from China, installing them on our homes, and actually getting something out of it.

So, cede technological leadership to China? Buy even MORE **** from China, filling their coffers at the expense of our own?

If China wants to waste money giving us cheap panels we should oblige. Our economy would get stimulated by install/maintence jobs which is where the jobs are anyways.

Instead he slapped tarriffs making them so expensive you need a govt subsidy to pay for it, to make it work economically. It's just not a good business model and points to solar panels being a loser. It won't be a technology that sticks once the real technology gets developed. The real being nuclear fusion reactors that run on seawater. Once we get that solar panels and power plants will be a joke.

If China wants to waste money giving us cheap panels we should oblige. Our economy would get stimulated by install/maintence jobs which is where the jobs are anyways.

Instead he slapped tarriffs making them so expensive you need a govt subsidy to pay for it, to make it work economically. It's just not a good business model and points to solar panels being a loser. It won't be a technology that sticks once the real technology gets developed. The real being nuclear fusion reactors that run on seawater. Once we get that solar panels and power plants will be a joke.

Commercially viable fusion is at least a century away. The best we've accomplished is a 10 billion dollar reactor that has yet to produce net positive energy or run for more than a few hundred milliseconds.

And of course, you keep ignoring that even with fusion we still need the ability to store that energy, which is why we need to invest a lot into energy storage technology. You'll never fit a fusion reactor into a car.

Battery technology will improve on a curve without much govt funding. Already some of the battery technology is growing. IMO it won't need much govt prodding. Let the private sector do it naturally fed.

Well France has the most advanced one yet being built. I think 2020 it comes online. It will be used to try and figure out how to make them work as a powerplant. I;d rather invest money over the next 50 yrs going for fusion, then wasting it like Obama does. You know spending money on things the private sector will do if they made sense economically. No private companies can work on fusion without govt help. Its way too big and scientifically challenging.

So we get some electric cars. Do you really think that is going to cool the earth? If it does then I was wrong but I think we could all drive them and co2 would still go up.

But I am not anti electric car Fed I think they are a great idea. I just don't believe govt needs to force the issue. The best thing you could do for that industry is to open up more rare earth mines in the USA. We need those minerals to make batteries. Right now China shoving the fact they are the only producer up are ass with a shovel.

We have one getting ready to open and in CA. I think its more then a yr away still though. When it goes we will own 30% of the rare earth market. When that happens you watch those industries will kick ass. But we will still point out when Obamas investments go south because it shows bad decision making on the people he put around him to decide this stuff. I'm not arguing that electric cars are stupid though. I don't think that at all.

Battery technology will improve on a curve without much govt funding. Already some of the battery technology is growing. IMO it won't need much govt prodding. Let the private sector do it naturally fed.

Energy storage tech is far, far behind. There's a reason your fancy smartphone needs to be charged twice a day. And of course we've only gotten to where were at with large amounts of government funding (see: universities).

Quote:

Well France has the most advanced one yet being built. I think 2020 it comes online. It will be used to try and figure out how to make them work as a powerplant. I;d rather invest money over the next 50 yrs going for fusion, then wasting it like Obama does. You know spending money on things the private sector will do if they made sense economically. No private companies can work on fusion without govt help. Its way too big and scientifically challenging.

Put all our eggs in one basket, eh? A highly theoretical basket at that. Fusion may never be viable.

You seem to think all worthwhile advancement happens at a pace that is commercially viable. That's just amazing naive. Fundamental R&D is not something that is profitable in the short term, and don't kid yourself, energy production and storage tech all still requires fundamental R&D.

Quote:

So we get some electric cars. Do you really think that is going to cool the earth? If it does then I was wrong but I think we could all drive them and co2 would still go up.

You have a single track mind. GCC is a concern, but so is the finite availability of Dino energy resources as well as the ecological consequences (beyond GCC) of gathering those resources. Ever seen a strip mining operation?

Cmon Fed most scientists in that field say it will eventually work. They usually aren't wrong but i fully admit that sort of stuff way over my head. I'm not saying Obama should not invest, i am saying the stimulus was a giveaway, done so fast no govt could distribute the money to winners. They just flung it all over the place to see what would stick. I fully agree though the govt needed for major change in science. I am 100% behind the space program, doing major things like try to develop fusion, go to mars, cure diseases and yes even battery storage. Its just Obama didn't do it right, he wasted a large portion of billions on crap. I wonder how much Obama even giving to fusion, i bet they would have loved 130 million here, 80 million here, you know the big chunks on companies bankrupt.